You can tell by my phrasing that I don't like it. Not one bit. In case you haven't been paying attention, first term congressperson Jackie Speier– California's latest offering to the pyre of political lunacy– is proposing a Federally mandated national limit of 60 mph. I'm so angry I could spit. First of all, NO!!!!! Leave me alone! If I want to pay a bit more to get somewhere quicker that's between me and my bank account. Don't tread! Second, will hybrids, ethanol burners, hydrogen fuel cell and electric cars be limited to 60 mph, or just the dino-juice drinkers? And if all cars are limited, why? If I'm getting veggie-diesel from the local Thai joint what possible business is it of the Feds if I'm driving down the road at 80 mph? Can't they just get back to launching unnecessary wars, illegal phone taps and Alaskan bridges? You know, their core competencies. So what do you think?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Makes absolutely no difference to me.
Everywhere around Chicago is 55, except lake shore drive is 40-45 depending on the season.
People regularly go 75-80. The speed limit is a joke.
Because the data shows that people are already consuming less fuel, so the decision is being made already.
But diesel use is still going up. Now what happens when truckers cover less ground per day and spend more hours idling overnight at 0mpg? At best, it might be a break-even scenario when the reduced speeds are taken into account.
Just food for thought. A friend brought that up and I found it interesting.
depends upon the reasons for the proposal…
if it’s to slow people down to save lives (car crashes), they possibly its not too stupid, as long as it’s coupled with increased driver training…
if it’s to slow people down to save fuel, then yes, it’s stupid – very stupid…
for many, many, many reasons…
it would be just as reasonable (and stupid) to regulate engine output: 1 hp for every 35 pounds of weight…
The real reason is revenue generation. All of these other excuses about safety, or air quality, or fuel savings is utter BS.
Total BS. Government stupidity at its worst.
Sixty mph sounds OK to me. Uh, they are talking about the minimum limit, aren’t they?
Can’t they just get back to launching unnecessary wars, illegal phone taps and Alaskan bridges? You know, their core competencies.
Trust TTAC to sum up the federal government in one sentence. And do a better job than the MSM can dream about. Poetry.
Revenue generator. Add to the ticket the fuel surcharge, throw in speed camera tickets, combine with higher fuel taxes.
My bicycle is looking better all the time. Maybe they will start taxing and ticketing bicycle riders
Incredibly stupid.
Open freeway travel isn’t where fuel consumption rises. Billions of gallons are wasted daily sitting and idling in gridlock each morning in our cities.
It’s definitely worth opposing, no question. If it were to pass though, it wouldn’t be the end of the world. At least in states like California where people spend so much time in cars that everyone speeds. Strength in numbers and all that.
Uggh. You have to ask?
I’ve expressed my feelings to the office of Ms. Speier. I’d suggest that you do the same. Conveniently enough, the phone numbers of her office are on her website.
It might also help to call your local House representative to let them know how you feel about this proposal.
While you’re at it, call Senator Warner (R-Virginia) and your two federal senators to let them know what you think of his moves to restore the 55 limit. (Be polite, though, and keep any thoughts of hoonery to yourself.)
This is B.S. If I bought a Dodge Challenger I’d be pretty pissed off right about now.
On the individual level, it may seem dumb. However, there are about 200 million licensed drivers, are there not? Driving 60mph instead of 70mph reduces fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 10 to 20 percent, or so I’ve read. How much higher would those numbers be if people slowed from 80 to 60-ish? If half of our drivers were to reduce fuel consumption by 10 percent (assuming the other half are always in front of me going 45), how much demand would we reduce, which would help ease prices for everyone – especially people who can’t afford $4/gallon gas?
There’s no point. The 55 mph national speed limit simply made us a nation of scofflaws.
99.9% of drivers no longer pay any attention to speed limit signs, and almost none (in Michigan anyway) pay any attention to stop signs, red lights, or anything else, for that matter.
Where Drivers Are From:
One hand holding cell phone, one hand on horn, knee on wheel: New York
One hand holding cell phone, one hand with finger out window, knee on wheel: Chicago
One hand holding cell phone, one hand on newspaper, left knee on wheel, right foot solidly on accelerator: Boston
One hand holding cell phone, one hand checking Blackberry, knee on wheel*: California
*plus pistol on lap: LA
Both hands on wheel, eyes shut, both feet on brake, quivering in terror: Ohio, but driving in California
Both hands in air, gesturing, head turned to talk to somebody in the back seat, accelerator to floor, coin wedged under horn button: Italy
One hand on Latte, one hand holding cell phone, knee on wheel, foot on brake, mind on game: Seattle
Both hands on steering wheel in a relaxed posture, eyes constantly checking the rearview mirror for visible emissions from their own or another’s car: Colorado
One hand holding Burger King Whopper, one hand checking emails with Blackberry*, one knee on wheel, driving 78 in a 55 speed zone while tailgating less than 5 feet from the car ahead, watching porn** on the hacked DVD nav screen with one eye and watching out for others who never stop at cross streets with the other, while on the way to pick up the welfare check/unemployment check/food stamps: Michigan
* if female, talking on cell phone and constantly weaving
** if female, eyes on rearview mirror and yelling at kids, on the way to get the child support check
(Can you tell I live in Michigan? I know the routine exactly – doesn’t mean I follow it).
call your senators and congresspeople and tell them what you think. The main number for Capitol Hill is 202-224-3121. They listen to people who call them.
A 60mph national limit is Stupid^100.
menno:
** if female, eyes on rearview mirror and yelling at kids, on the way to get the child support check
Dude. Good points, but I think you have – how to put it nicely – issues?
My advice: Hate trees, not chicks.
Relieving congestion would do a lot more. But that’s a complicated, costly solution. Might as well go for the easy publicity, which a new Congresswoman could use. I wonder what a national vote would be on this issue…
Pandering QotD title blue ribbon award.
Sounds like a tax grab!
I was recently tagged by the cops doing 20 over on I79 in PA – not sure if this was unlucky (or worse), since I was being passed by another vehicle at the time, and a Canadian cop probably wouldn’t have blinked at the relative speed on a Canadian divided highway (thinking of 401 in Ontario). The ticket was about $160 and I was in the midst of an 1800 mile round trip to the Outer Banks in NC. Given the current price of gas, my 26MPG average still netted a cheaper round trip including the ticket then one of the other families also making the identical trip. For reference, I was driving well ladened BMW 330Ci with a low profile roofbox, and the other family was in their mini van (chrysler?) averaging 15MPG.
The point of the tale is that fuel is now a more expensive deterrent then the actual speeding ticket; tickets are effectively just tax grabs…
Best idea I’ve ever heard of from the Gov to date.
Too many of the , “Cold Dead Fingers” mentality around here.
Sure if you want to spend your cash on fuel, no problemo. But if you’re poluting MY AIR at the same time??!!? And making MY FUEL more expensive??!@
Buddy we got a problem!
Shoot yourself if you want to , it’s your right. But don’t let your blood splatter on MY stuff.
Fact is that more than half of the morons driving over 65 can’t handle a shopping cart at walking speed. Just because YOU can afford a high zoot techno barge doesn’t mean you know how to handle it properly.
Last I checked, you weren’t the sole proprietor of air or fuel.
some speed limits make some sense, like asking motorists to drive slowly around areas where children may be playing (far too many drivers don’t appear to get that – something about common sense, methinks), but most exist only to provide the authorities with an easy target with which to extract additional taxation from the hoi polloi.
The way I see it, we’ve got a bit of a paradox here. On one end, just about any new car on the road today can easily clear 100 MPH, with more than a handful of Germans needing electronic intervention to keep them on the civil side of 155. On the other end, they want to make the national speed limit 60 in the interest of fuel savings.
Here’s an idea: make engines smaller. This way we can use the same amount of fuel cruising at, say, 80, as the current fleet does at 60. The feds are happy because we save fuel and pollution, and the plebs are happy because we can cruise at a reasonable speed. Add in some weight savings, which will probably happen automatically as a result of less beefy drivetrains, and we’re all even happier.
All this “need power to safely merge” malarky is strictly bullshit. For 5 years I drove a ’92 Jetta with 100 hp – 0-60 in about 9.5 seconds, and I swear to god, I was almost always the fastest one merging, and having fun winding out the engine a bit. The car was also good for 120 MPH on the speedo – double the proposed limit, and mileage in the 30’s driving with a heavy foot; this in a car with 160k miles, fuel management out of the 80’s and aerodynamics that were shamed by your average shoe box. People not only don’t need the power that current cars possess, they don’t even use it.
Failing all that, my Ninja uses less gas at 120 than a Hummer does at 60. I propose that I, therefore, have the right to go faster =P
A big ditto on the “reduce our sitting and idling” comment. Forget a piddly 5-10mph here and there. What about all the unnecessary stops and starts people have to make? Traffic light coordination could probably do more for safety and air pollution on suburban surface streets than simply slowing us all down slightly on the interstate.
How about prohibiting road work during rush hour? That would be a nice one, too.
BULLSHIT! (can I say that here?)
Nobody (and I mean NOBODY except for old men in hats) drives the speed limit here in California. If you’re not going at least 10 over on the highway, you’re in danger of getting ran over and subject to many a ‘one-finger’ salute. It’s 65 here and I go 80 and I still get passed.
Oh, and by the way, my Ford Ranger gets better highway mileage at 80 than it does at 65. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Gee, loaded question? Semantically, it’s like asking “So, how was your rape trial?”
I’m going to be the dissenting voice and say that I agree with it, but with the proviso that it should be sensibly and selectively enforced:
* Cameras, not cops. Officers should be used for real crimes, or at least real traffic safety issues. A machine doesn’t need to be paid Police wages to sit around and snap a picture.
* Allow “burst” zones where safe and practical to do so.
* Enforce, for the love of god, lane discipline and safe driving. This goes along with the first point: there’s no point to cracking down on safe speeding but allowing dangerous driving at the limit just because you can’t prosecute it easily.
Driving slowly does save fuel; except for some hypermiler rides with interesting aerodynamics, drag at speeds above 80km/h is the factor in fuel use. There’s also some wisdom in conserving fuel now, when it’s comfortable to do so, rather than when we have real shortages.
I don’t entirely understand the opposition to this, other than the usual libertarian opposition to any kind of regulation (which is a whole ugly can’o’worms) that requires consideration of needs other than one’s own. To a collectivist like myself, it smacks of a lack of responsibility, but that’s sort of expected.
monkeyboy> What do you drive? If it gets under 85-90mpg shouldn’t you be driving a scooter? I mean you are making my fuel more expensive you know, but using more of it….
Ash78, AMEN!
Our lovely (Michigan) governor just mentioned publicly that she would “think about” lowering our speed limits to 55, so the lowly citizens could “save money”. (How about saving me money by taking back your tax hike, guv?)
I wonder how much money we’d save, collectively, if the local & county governments would get off their collective arse and time the lights so we don’t stop, start, stop, start every 1/2 mile.
Nah, that’s too much like work. Much easier to lower the speed limits and rake in the speeding fines.
I’d venture a guess that if there was a national declaraton that all stop signs were to be understood to be effectivelly yield signs, that would save huge quantities of fuel. Coming to a full stop and using first/lower gears to resume lost speed is a huge fuel user.
A 1$ per gallon gas tax, stricktly plowed back onto infrastucture would encourage short term habit changes like those that are already taking place, and save fuel in the future by facilitation of efficient smooth traffic flows.
Idling at zero miles per hour equals ifinite gallens per mile.
As a trooper in Missouri, I could give a (fill in the blank) what the speed limit is. I don’t get the fine money and as I understand it, the state actually gets very little of the money. Here, it primarily goes to the county courts. I’d like to squash the idea that law enforcement is sitting around salivating about the proposed lower speed limit. News flash. We don’t care!! However we’ll enforce it as that’s our job.
I will say this. Big brother already set your current speed limit and he’ll set any future speed limits. I’m not understanding what the big deal is about dropping it down a little. If Daddy Warbucks has a lot of cash and wants to blow it on fuel, great. But, last time I checked, this wasn’t a country of one. It’s a country of 300 million and we all can do a little to conserve. It’s not all about you or me!
So, Mr Warner at 55, now this Lady at 60 . . . do I hear a 65? 70? :D
P.S. among the hypermiler tricks I have adopted that net me mid 40mpg’s with my Corolla, I cap my speed at 65, but come my anual road trip . . . I have budgeted for the 10 mpg hit I’ll take going 85 all day long, it will save two days of vacation time lost to being on the road going a STUPIDLY slow speed, and the expenses of an extra motel room stay each way. Hey lawmakers, don’t limit/handicap my mobility and freedom! Treat me like an adult!
Price is doing what was unsuccessfully delegated to the 55 mph limit in the 1970s. Leave the speed limit alone. The 55 eroded public respect for authority and law enforcement, wasted gazillion man-months of time and productivity, and bored a couple hundred million people for nearly a generation. A pox on it and anyone seeking its return. Law enforcement will find the task every bit as unmanageable as it was 30 years ago.
Phil
To put things in perspective for those who get away with driving 80 in a 55…Enjoy it while it lasts.
Got TWO $160 speeding tickets for going 5 over (50 in a 45) and 8 over (63 in a 55) on the AA highway in KY.
1169hp> If I use less fuel going 75 on my gsx-r 600 than a hummer h2 @ 55…..why should I feel guilty? Would you still rail on the hummer more than me even though he’s going slower? He’s using more fuel than me….?
Also: I am doing my part to conserve fuel by walking every day to work. If I want to blow some fuel on the weekend, why not? Should anyone be railed on for unnecessary driving?
I don’t speed so I don’t care.
Robstar:
Good point.
Nemphre, it’s people who DO speed who don’t care. I’ll do 80 whether the limit is 50 or 70.
If you’re someone who doesn’t speed, you’ll be slowing down from 65 to 55. Does that not bother you? (honest question)
psarhjinian Says:
Gee, loaded question? Semantically, it’s like asking “So, how was your rape trial?”
I’m going to be the dissenting voice and say that I agree with it,
Driving slowly does save fuel; except for some hypermiler rides with interesting aerodynamics, drag at speeds above 80km/h is the factor in fuel use. There’s also some wisdom in conserving fuel now, when it’s comfortable to do so, rather than when we have real shortages.
Then TAX oil, and let people decide individually how best to save it. There are other uses of oil, and maybe people would rather sacrifice in those areas than in highway speeds. A lower speed limit that is enforced is going to clutter the roads, because it would mean that everyone spends a longer time on the same stretch of pavement. That will result in more frequent traffic jams.
As for safety, it is unclear to me that 60mph on the interstates is going to be safer than 75. There is a lot of conflicting data.
I still love to “follow the money” on any proposal for new regulations. The real winners are the insurance companies. They get to raise your premiums once you get some tickets, and you tend to be safer as you don’t want nay more tickets, so they get a safer driver paying more than the same driver used to pay when he drove faster. That’s why insurance companies subsidize radar equipment and photo radar setups – to further penalize drivers and increase their profits.
Government protect me from thyself.
Where do you stop making laws to save gas? Some people accelerate too quickly and waste more gas that way than those accelerating slowly…
Some people have luggage racks and ladder racks on their cars and trucks that aren’t always being used to carry, that seems like it should be banned to save .5 – 2mpg or so…
Some people don’t use their cruise control even when it would beneficial.
Maybe we could have checkpoints to check for low tire pressure. Unnecessarily high rolling resistance should be a federal crime!
STUPID STUPID STUPID.
alanp:
“They still get to raise your premiums once you get some tickets…..”
I’m not trying to knock your ayalysis. I think it’s quite valid. But, why is it assumed the masses are in for a “fist-full-o-tickets.”
I’m of the belief that people have control of their bodies, mainly our right foot. Said foot actuates pedals that can control one’s speed. You don’t have to be a frequent customer/victim of the local traffic cop.
If the big black and white sign says ## mph and you keep it in that range, I’m sure you’ll be good.
1169> I agree with your last post.
Whenever I am in an unfamiliar area, alone, I ALWAYS drive under the limit.
People control their own destiny as far as getting tickets goes.
Next, we will have to pass through internal Homeland Security checkpoints and take off our shoes.
“If you’re someone who doesn’t speed, you’ll be slowing down from 65 to 55. Does that not bother you?”
No, because I’ll be saving money on fuel, and the highway might be safer. I have time to spare.
So no one wants to have their cake and eat it too by rightsizing engine size/power and therefore being able to cruise at higher speeds without using more gas?
[i]ash78
A big ditto on the “reduce our sitting and idling” comment. Forget a piddly 5-10mph here and there. What about all the unnecessary stops and starts people have to make? Traffic light coordination could probably do more for safety and air pollution on suburban surface streets than simply slowing us all down slightly on the interstate.
How about prohibiting road work during rush hour? That would be a nice one, too.
[/i]
You are stating my exact sentiments. You must be from California as well!
Poor traffic light timing causing unnecessary starts and stops may do more for reducing air pollution than a 5 mph reduction in the speed limit. Cars are in closed-loop mode when cruising (minimizing air pollution), yet when accelerating they are in open-loop mode (more air needs more fuel which emits more NOx and CO2).
Caltrans is NOTORIOUS for their stupidity. I have seen them sweeping I-5 right outside of LA at 8 am on a weekday.
To all of you advocating the 60 mph speed limit, there is nothing stopping you from driving 60 mph NOW.
If people want to save gas, they’ll drive slower.
If people want to save gas, they’ll sell their SUV/truck.
If people want to save gas, they’ll commute or take public transportation.
It’s a shame that you can’t think or do anything for yourselves without a government mandate.
east hampton NY news paper published article about local government committee (selectman? ?overseers? I forget their chosen name) that had hearings on the current 35 mph limits there. They decided to keep at 35 since people drive 45. this is government talking. Um who cares about the law its just some dumbass game, right, I learned this here in the USA.
Cars should be electronically governed, hooked up to GPS and local MPH reference and thats as fast as you can go. Then raise limits to safe speed not some fake number. Whatever road is designed for.
Then, MPG should be reverse taxed, pay extra $ for bad mpg. I know they do it now but they don’t really do it.
The speed limit here is 55, I drive around 65 and do not get tickets. I also improved my MPGs by 20% (over EPA) by volunteering to stay close to the limit.
I do not like a 60mpg speed limit that is enforced harshly. Still I don’t have to like it. It may still be good for my future to have it. Still yet again how big of a deal is the current speed limit? How big of a deal is 10% more fuel consumption as a whole? I’d like to see some smart data showing the benefits and reasons for them.
Its a challenge for me to give up going 75-85 sometimes. I have a challenging time justifying putting everyone through it. Its not fair by any means. I decided to oppose it, because it may mean a weaker economy (less travel, less shopping time, possibly more traffic.)
well, I guess this is nominally less of a waste of taxpayer dollars than policing Roger Clemens entire life. Nominally.
Our elected officials really need to get actual jobs that require time and effort so that they can stop looking for ways to aggrivate their constituents.
As several folks have already mentioned, it is not speeding that causes excess fuel consumption, it is bumper-to-bumper creeping.
Nothing quite like solving a problem we don’t have to avoid having to work on the ones we do have.
1. Leave the speed limits alone.
2. Raise gas taxes $1 per gallon.
3. Dedicate the $1 increase to projects that will decrease traffic congestion.
I definitely agree that a slightly lower speed limit on the freeways wouldn’t even begin to match the fuel savings we could achieve by simply keeping traffic moving.
Wouldn’t Jackie’s time be better spent on tougher anti-gang laws or eliminating government waste? Our state is $16b in the red. I guess she thinks that more speeding tickets will make CA more business friendly.
Proving once again CA is indeed the land of fruits and nuts.
We’ve seen the waste and misuse of power when Republicans act irresponsibly at the National level. This is what happens when Democrats ruin things at the state level.
Thanks guys.
As Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw would say, this is pants-on-head retarded.
I drive between Seattle and Portland a lot, 3 or 4 times
a week. So I built a car that would do 25mpg at the then
freeway speed, 70mph. Now they want to limit me to 60mph??
I get 19mpg at 60mph…
That’ll help…
SteveL
If there is a 60 mph speed limit, I am going to apply to be a state cop. Then I can uphold the law, pass all the law abiding masses and lecture the miscreants that try to drive as fast as me on my highway.
Beginning to think California’s population is going to slowly shrink. Not many people are going to put up with the elected commies trying to tell them how to drive.
I’m going to copy what I said about the 55 MPH speed limit on Autoblog Green:
LET PEOPLE DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES HOW MUCH GAS THEY WANT TO USE.
If they can’t afford to speed, they won’t spend the gas money. A return to the double nickel would result in two things: more accidents and more police revenue.
Put a tax on the gas, and LET PEOPLE DECIDE HOW FAST THEY WANT TO DRIVE (within limits, I’m not talking Autobahn here).
My proposal assumes a few things: Americans learn what lane discipline is. Let’s say they keep the speed limits, and you’re driving 75 on a 75 road. You’re in the right lane. The person in front of you decides that he wants to slow down, and that’s not what you want. Pass him on the left. But what if there’s a person in the left lane doing 60 mph? THEY GET A TICKET, because you would be forced to pass on the right. Passing on the right should also warrant a ticket.
The way it is now, lanes don’t mean much, and people just drive wherever they want and pass on whatever side they want. If we drop the speed limit to 55, you can be sure that there will be some people who decide not to obey that limit. Without any official rules governing lane discipline — ENFORCED rules — this is unsafe. Instead of forcing EVERYONE to slow down, give people the choice and ENFORCE THE LANE RULES. People can freely drive slower… in the RIGHT lane. Driving slowly in the left lane would not be legal, nor would passing on the right.
Obviously, this is way too complicated for police officers to enforce, so it’s a moot point anyway.
What I say about 55 applies the same to 60.
reclusive_in_nature: wishful thinking. CA’s population is concentrated in places where you can’t go that fast anyway (due to traffic and/or geography) — Speiers is from one such place.
Michael Ayoub: lane discipline (which I totally support) would require mandatory driver’s education classes (which I also totally support). You can’t just pass the law and discipline people for ignoring it; they’ve been driving the old way their whole lives.
ktristan Says:
Got TWO $160 speeding tickets for going 5 over (50 in a 45) and 8 over (63 in a 55) on the AA highway in KY.
Yup, Kentucky discovered that turning the AA Highway (partial divided highway from the NKY/Cincinnati suburbs that follows the Ohio River to near West Virginia for those not from here) can be quite the moneymaker. I cruise that road between Cincinnati and Maysville on a regular basis and those cops have so many little places to hide in the foothills…
I see both sides of the speed limit argument but I believe that anyone that votes it into law has just ended their political career. It’s like voting yes to increase the gas tax (which I’m for IF we can get some type of agreement that the new funds will be used to widen and repair roads and increase where mass transit reaches…) On the other hand, if the speed limit doesn’t get lowered, the weight of the issue then falls on our shoulders to save fuel and I’m sure many of us knows how that will go.
So to save fuel, one of the only things I can think of is a cross-country re-education blitz with a “change your way or else” type of message. It sounds so simple on paper but doesn’t translate into actual use. I’ve done over 25,000 miles in my car so far this year, and I’ve lost count of underinflated tires, roof-racks/turtleshells, smoke out of tailpipes, and overloaded SUV/truck cargo areas – all of those must burn more fuel than the 5mph between 65 and 70. Lane discipline MUST be enforced since it seems like many sudden traffic jams and slowdowns are caused by people slamming on brakes due to someone going 60 in a 70 and the traffic behind follows suit with their brake lights. I’m all for the German policy where the fines for lane blocking and tailgating are much higher than speeding in areas with speed limits.
What stinks is that as long as states have the power to set speed limits, terrible laws like Virginia’s flogging of Virginia license holders will stick around. It’s easy money for everyone involved.
I’m all for “baby steps” in this matter – force metro areas of a certain size to synch/coordinate stoplights on most routes, widen shoulders into short lanes when on ramps are a mile or less from the next off ramp to end the clogging when merging cars meet exiting cars and to continue to build traffic circles and re-do at-grade intersections at major intersections to smaller “exit-ramp” style intersections (since some posters might be from the Cincinnati area also – picture the AA/Alexandria Pike and Reed Hartman/Kemper intersections.)
Start small states. By the time the changes are made, the market would have spoken and our cars will be getting better mileage by then.
I’m just gonna sy you’re absolutely right; especially the last two lines!!!
Until recently, I drove very fast on major interstates. A week ago, I decided to try 65 MPH for the hell of it.
My discovery? It’s boring. Really, really boring. After literally twenty seconds, I was musing about buying myself Sirius and an in-car television. When I’m going fast, I’m on constant cop-watch, and perpetually looking for anything, anywhere, that could force me to evasively maneuver.
At 65, I want to nod off. It’s hard to pay attention, and even harder to keep my car from creeping up into the 70s. In fact, the only concentration comes from controlling speed; if I enabled Cruise, I’d be daydreaming my way down the freeway.
So which is preferable? A speeding driver on full alert, or a legion of somewhat slower, utterly narcotized drivers?
I have time to spare.
As I’m closer to death everyday, I don’t.
I enjoy the time I spend in my car, no reason to cut it short. As long as I have my stereo, I’m ready for 55 mph.
Just because you can afford the fuel it gives
you the right to waste it, Johnny? We are now
KILLING people for oil, remember? Go ahead and
be a danger and menace to yourself and everyone
else, speeding around at 85 mph, but recognize what you are doing.
You are going to be doing 55 soon anyway because
that is the speed the semi trucks are going to be
driving, clogging up the road for everyone, including driving enthusiasts with nice hot
shiny new cars.
In your favor, I don’t care for big brother making new laws
while their helicoptors and transport planes and tanks use
up all of our fucking fuel.
Anyone who would vote for such a bill is basically saying “I get to fly for all my trips over 100 miles”. I’d love to put them in a car going from Phoenix to L.A./ or crossing Texas and see how happy they would be, driving 90 mile stretches between gas stations at 60 mph.I’d be ok with such speed limits in-town but out there in the VAST open areas of this country anything less than 75 is a huge waste of time.
How stupid? Very.
But it is completely predictable in today’s image-is-everything political climate.
The stupid part is that it won’t save much gas. Road warriors who need to cover mega miles to keep working will fly more. How much mpg per seat-mile does a Boeing get?
Fuel used for inter-urban car travel is a very small fraction of the total consumed. Lower than 20%. A case could be made for it in 1974 when the average Detroit full-sizer got about 13 mpg @ 70mph. At 55, the same cars got about 15. Big whoop. Today’s full size V8s (think Crown Vic) get about 25 mpg at 70.
This proposal is madness and all of us in the car-loving community need to stop this puppy in its tracks.
Just because you can afford the fuel it gives
you the right to waste it, Johnny? We are now
KILLING people for oil, remember? Go ahead and
be a danger and menace to yourself and everyone
else, speeding around at 85 mph, but recognize what you are doing.
People have killed for a lot less (and a lot more) than oil (if you really want to believe it’s all about oil and nothing else). Besides, on an open straight highway with at least a mile of visibility ahead, what is dangerous about traveling 85 mph? These aren’t T-buckets we’re driving anymore.
You are going to be doing 55 soon anyway because
that is the speed the semi trucks are going to be
driving, clogging up the road for everyone, including driving enthusiasts with nice hot
shiny new cars.
Truck drivers are the most courteous people I’ve seen on the road (no lie). When one truck has to switch lanes, the other one will flash his high-beams to let him know he’s clear to move over. They only use the left lane for overtaking (even if it does take forever to do so), and on most interstates, they’re prohibited from occupying the left lane to avoid clogging up the road. When you respect the truckers, the truckers will respect you.
“Put a tax on the gas, and LET PEOPLE DECIDE HOW FAST THEY WANT TO DRIVE (within limits, I’m not talking Autobahn here).”
So what you’re saying is that you agree with speed limits, but merely want to negotiate on the price?
I live in Illinois. Excuse me, The People’s Republic of Illinois. Let me illustrate how a “collectivist” government, drunk with power, cannot be trusted to mandate behaviors, collect taxes and spend money responsibly. When the state lottery was created, it was sold to the people on the promise that revenues would be used solely for education. In reality, the revenues were diverted to other pet projects and constituencies. They did this by cutting general revenue funding for education, so the incremental gains, upon which they argued for the creation of a lottery, were minimal. Now our governor has proposed selling the lottery to a private firm (no doubt, a firm with connections to him or his friends) to raise revenue to balance his budget. I doubt this will all go to education.
Need another example? What about the cigarette company lawsuit revenue (read: backdoor cigarette tax), which was supposed to be used for healthcare and smoking cessation programs only, being pumped into general revenue coffers to cover budget shortfalls created by over-ambitious political spending programs?
Who really thinks that another dollar per gallon of fuel tax will be spent only for the stated purpose (infrastructure?) on which it is passed? Seriously.
And this 55 mph limit proposal is just another assault on the individual liberty this government was designed to protect. How ironic that this government of, by, and for the people now looks down its nose at us as incapable of running our own lives?! How frightening that so many of us are perfectly willing to let it happen?! How can we be trusted to vote for the “right” leaders if we can’t even figure out how to cope with $4 per gallon gasoline? Maybe we ought to give up that right to those who know better, as well.
We face the same bullshit proposals in Canada all the time too. Speed is never, ever a factor in a wreck. Ever. The only factor is the driver’s lack of ability. But if the government did what NEEDED to be done, which is a thorough training program and re-evaluation of all drivers, making driving a PRIVILAGE, not a right, then they wouldn’t make any money. The only reason speeding tickets exist is because the system “works” to make money, not to make things safer.
If the feds mandate a lower national speed limit, it should apply to all vehicles with government tags and those “unmarked” Victorias and 500’s that speed well above the current posted limits.
Vehicles chauffering around elected and appointed supposed big wigs should have a lit speed indicator on the vehicle’s roof for all to see.
And “No”‘ they are not always “on call”.
We’ve seen the waste and misuse of power when Republicans act irresponsibly at the National level.
Uh… last I looked the Dems are in control of both Houses of Congress and have driven public approval numbers down to single digits (9% last I looked). So if you have a Dem in your state you are double screwed. Our Dem (Ohio) is pretty good, not near as liberal as the Cali bunch.
With my last car (late 80’s Mazda) I’d get low-mid 30’s driving the freeway at 70+ or mid-30’s driving 65. If a car is geared right, you can get great gas mileage going 70+.
I also just drove a new 4 cylinder Malibu (not mine) with the 4 speed slushbox and it got an average of 26 mpg between SW and SE Michigan going a shade over the speed limit. Ugh… A V6+MTX Mazda6 will get that kind of mileage at those speeds and have enough left over to put a smile on your face.
I don’t buy the whole changing the speed limit to save gas argument. If people want more efficient cars, they’ll buy ’em and the car companies will adjust size,weight,gear ratios, etc to meet what the market demands. We’ve spent the last 15 yrs buying cars & trucks for pulling phantom trailers with 6L V8s and sprinting to 60mph in sub 7 seconds that we hardly remember the days of great gas mileage at current highway speeds. Why did we do it? Gasoline was CHEAP. It isn’t anymore, and the market will adjust just like always does.
Even if they did lower the speed limit, could it be enforced? Do they even have the manpower to effectivly pull over everyone if the limit was lowered? I live in canada and the highway speed here is 110kmph. Just this past weekend I flew by a camped out cop going 135kmph with his radar gun pointed right at me and…nothing. The police are so busy pulling over drivers going insanely fast (150kmph +) that I was completely ignored. Or I was very lucky…either way, I really do have to get around to buying that V1.
Instead of reducing speed limits, why not eliminate drive-thru’s? All those cars getting 0 mpg while waiting in line. So get off your arse and go inside for your Big Mac! Except for the Big Mac part, we’ll all be better off!
Dude. Good points, but I think you have – how to put it nicely – issues?
My advice: Hate trees, not chicks.….
When I had a pool, I did harbor some animosity toward trees. Last week I got off my train and saw that some ahole hit my car and left. So I must say, like trees, hate people. People Suck!!
Big deal. That just means that instead of driving 75 everyone will drive 65.